These are familiar strikes that carry a message and symbolism rather than aiming for maximum destruction—but Trump’s claim of the “complete elimination” of Iran’s nuclear centers is highly questionable.
The information is still quite incomplete, but if things are as they appear, then tonight we’ve witnessed yet another, now somewhat recognizable, symbolic missile strike by Iran. According to current reports, Iranian forces fired rockets at the U.S. Al Udeid base in Qatar and the Al Asad base in Iraq.
The very fact that explosions could be heard over Doha initially caused alarm (there are even recordings of panic in the streets of Qatar’s capital), but the situation quickly calmed down. Iran claims it carried out a “powerful and devastating missile attack,” but Qatari authorities say their air defenses intercepted all missiles. Later, Iran reported that it launched the same number of rockets as the U.S. did in its strike on Iran early yesterday morning.
Of course, there’s one big difference: the U.S. strike allegedly caused major damage to three of Iran’s key nuclear facilities, while tonight’s attack on American bases in Qatar and Iraq (and possibly on Kuwait and Bahrain, though that’s unconfirmed) resulted in no casualties or significant damage. These were clearly mild attacks, unlike the far stronger ones launched recently on key Israeli cities.
Naturally, it makes no sense to automatically distrust Iranian claims (which are clearly exaggerated) while fully trusting American ones—because this supposedly “spectacular” strike on Iran that Trump is now praising might not have been nearly as effective as claimed. The American bombs, especially those dropped on Fordow, created a large cloud of smoke and undoubtedly shook the mountain under which Iran’s uranium enrichment facility is located. But the big question is whether the explosions actually reached deep underground, or if they just scattered material across the surface.
Furthermore, some sources suggest Iran had already moved all valuable nuclear material to safety. If that’s true, and if the targeted centers weren’t destroyed—regardless of what Trump claims without evidence—then it’s impossible to say Iran’s nuclear program has been “eliminated.”
These details are yet to be clarified, as we currently have the U.S. narrative versus Iran’s, and neither side has an interest in portraying the situation objectively.
For now, we can only speculate on the true effectiveness of both yesterday’s U.S. strike and today’s Iranian response. Let’s remember Iran’s missile strike on U.S. bases in Iraq after Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani during his first term. That attack was also called “weak” at first—but weeks later, reports surfaced about American soldiers suffering severe concussions, many of whom required long recovery periods.
One likely true detail from that earlier incident is that Iran warned the U.S. in advance, via certain channels, of the time and location of the strike. This allowed American troops to take shelter, which is why there were no casualties. In a way, this “tactic” helped de-escalate the situation.
That may be the case again tonight. Some unofficial sources claim Iran warned both Qatar and the U.S. in advanceof the planned attack. Moreover, if only around ten missiles were used, it’s clear the damage would be minimal or nonexistent.
But why would Iran do this? Especially the day after Trump ambushed them with an attack, lying about giving “two weeks for diplomacy” beforehand? There are several reasons—but one main one: Iran wants to show its own public that the U.S. attack did not go unanswered. Doing nothing would make them appear weak. Ironically, in the eyes of their foreign enemies—especially the U.S.—a weak response also makes them look… weak.
At the same time, Iran knows that a massive attack on a U.S. base, involving more missiles and casualties, would almost certainly trigger a new wave of American airstrikes, likely much stronger. That is not in their interest, so they may have used the same tactic as before—de-escalation through limited missile fire.
As mentioned multiple times, this is an ongoing situation, and some information might change quickly, or new developments may occur from either side. But for now, it seems Iran is trying to “settle the score” without provoking a new round of retaliation. Whether this can be convincingly portrayed to the Iranian public as proper revenge is another question. Iran is not North Korea—its public does have access to alternative narratives.
Unnamed U.S. military officials say they anticipated such a move from Iran. If that’s true, there may be no further American retaliation, despite Trump’s sharp threats to strike Iran even harder if Tehran dared to respond. But that would imply the existence of communication channels, at least indirect ones, that allow the U.S. and Iran to coordinate these strange de-escalations. That didn’t seem likely yesterday, after the U.S. strike on Iran. So now we wait to see what Trump will do. Israel will certainly push him to strike again, more forcefully, and to extend the mission from halting uranium enrichment to full-on regime change. He’s already hinted he likes that idea.
As for Iran’s retaliation tonight—it was mild, perhaps even pre-announced, but it still serves a purpose: Iran has shown it will not submit completely to Trump’s bullying behavior, which comes across like that of a barroom thug who punches someone in the face and then says, “Let’s sit down and negotiate.” Iran won’t accept such submission, and even if these attacks were light, they’ve made it clear that the next round could be far more powerful.
About the Author
